coronationstreetfandomcom-20200215-history
Forum:Relationship sub-headings
Sub-headings For the relationship section I think it would be best if we divided the sections up under individual sub-headings. The headings I suggest are; "Family", "Children and Grandchildren", "Spouses", "In-Laws", "Partners", "Rivals" and "Acquaintances". The reason I have pitched this idea is because certain characters have so many relationships that having one big list with them all would be hard to navigate through and, frankly, an eyesore. With the sections split up it allows readers to easily find the relationship that they are looking for (some characters may fall under more than one section but I think they should be placed in the section that they are most known for being). I originally began implementing this idea onto several pages, Sinead Tinker's page currently fully lists her relationship section like this, as some pages (which had already been checked by the "main character progress" scheme) had already got some of these sub-headings. For example; Albert Tatlock's page lists a "Friends" section - which I changed to "Acquaintances" while doing Sinead's page to make the section more vague as I wanted to expand on her relationship with Joseph Brown - and Ken Barlow's page has a "Children and Grandchildren" section. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 23:06, November 9, 2019 (UTC) :Connor, they have so many relationships because you have added an excessive amount to the articles. Taking Sinead Osbourne as an example, there is absolutely no need for a sub-section on Cilla as the characters barely said two words to each other. Ditto Claudia and Denise. With Fiz, Adam, Roy, Carla, Peter and Tracy I'm sure you can find lots of examples of interactions by dint of the fact that because they have both been in the programme for a long time but if you have those you might as well have every character in the show. She is connected to Kirk, Craig, and Joseph but they are not significant relationships in their own right. With Bertie, as he is a baby there is nothing that can't go in the biography. Bethany's importance is through the cancer storyline and her relationship with Daniel so that'll be covered well enough in those sections. Similarly her histories with Katy and Gemma are linked to her relationship with Chesney so they can be touched on there. That leaves Beth, Daniel, Chesney and Ken which I would agree are justified. Ironically, I would add one more that you haven't - Arlene, Agnes and Nancy Tinker (all together under 'Tinker family'). Even though they didn't share much screentime they had crucial off-screen relationships and the little hints about Sinead's upbringing are important to her character. So that's five relationships for Sinead. I could do the same with any of the other pages you've added to, and the number won't get much higher than that. :As I said on your talk page, I think you've misunderstood what the relationship section is for. It's there to keep the biography down to a reasonable length and make the page more readable by dividing it into sections. If we go into the level of detail you have on Sinead's page - keeping in mind that Sinead was only in the programme for seven years - we're setting an impossible precedent for ourselves with the longer-running characters. We're talking about characters who have been in hundreds of episodes, we should be looking for ways to get everything down in as few words as possible. The Sinead/Cilla scenes I mentioned above are utterly irrelevant to both characters and is a level of detail far beyond what we're looking for. If a storyline has been gone over in detail in the biography, it only needs a cursory mention in the relationships. :A couple of other points: 1) Ken's article should not have a 'children and grandchildren' section so is not a precedent 2) Albert's 'Friends' sub-section is so-called because it looked better lumping various characters together rather than have a line or two for each one under their own heading. :So my answer is a firm no. There aren't any characters who'll have enough relationships that we need sub-headings. David (talk) 00:21, November 10, 2019 (UTC) ::I haven't misinterpreted what the relationship section is for, I have misinterpreted your definition (and therefore this site's) which is not the precedent on many other Wikias. I find it highly disappointing that you didn't point this out long ago, as you were active a lot of the time when I was clearly making these edits - but it is not the first time you have allowed me to spend time and effort before completely tearing the work down. I wont add the sub-headings in future, however I can honestly say that right now Sinead Osbourne's page is the best character page on this Wikia so far and I fear the damage you will cause when you edit it. Thanks. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 00:46, November 10, 2019 (UTC) :::That is not true. I always point out mistakes as soon as I notice them - why wouldn't I? I'm the one who has to the fix them. I'm sorry that you feel that way but a look around at some completed regular character pages (and there are plenty of them) will have told you what goes in the relationships sections and what level of detail to apply. David (talk) 00:55, November 10, 2019 (UTC) ::::I hope that's true but I find it hard to believe that you missed my extensive editing when you were active at the same time on multiple occasions. I looked at a lot of the regular character's relationship sections, as I got the sub-headings from Ken Barlow and Albert Tatlock, most of them were poor and now eventually Sinead's will be poor too. Xx-connor-xX (talk) 00:59, November 10, 2019 (UTC) I added the 'children and grandchildren' sub section to Ken's page (the other family section should really have been named 'parents and brother' at the same time so they matched) because IIRC beforehand all of the information on Ken's relationships with his family was jumbled together in one section and there was still a lot more that could be expanded on so it made sense to break them up into individual sections for each child and grandchild. Otherwise you would have had a huge section that went on for paragraphs on end with no breaks. I don't see the point in having a section for Bertie though which I think was added later, what on earth could be said there that couldn't be covered under Daniel's section? For the same reason I avoided writing a seperate section for James Cunningham and included relevant information under the section for Lawrence. Carterboi33 (talk) 00:35, November 10, 2019 (UTC)